48 TWENTY-FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT

The non-current county land record film exposed by our staff or filmed for the
Hall of Records by the Clerks of Court and inspected by our personnel is presented
below:

STAFF
County Reels

Prince George's.................................................. 19

CLERKS
Anne Arundel.............................................................. 3

Baltimore................................................................ 19

Frederick................................................................... 51

Prince George's......................................................... 49

Total ........................................................ 122

Ninety-five reels of county records, filmed bv Hall and McChesnev, were added
to the microfilm collection of the Hall of Recoras. Fifty-four of these consisted of
miscellaneous Circuit Court records and the remaining forty-one contained records
of the Orphans' Courts and Registers of Wills.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The members of the Hall of Records Commission have been aware
for the last three years of our difficulty in clarifying the ownership
of the Maryland Guide, which was originally prepared by the Writers'
Project of the WPA and published by the Oxford University Press.
After unsatisfactory efforts to negotiate with the Oxford Press, the
Attorney General was asked to advise us. He concluded that "the
agreement with the Oxford University Press had been terminated if it
has declined to reprint or publish a new edition of the work, provided
demand has been made upon them to do so." (This opinion may be
found in a letter of Stedman Prescott, Jr. to Dr. Morris L. Radoff,
dated July 25, 1958, and printed in the Twenty-Third Annual Report
of the Archivist.}

Since the Archivist was not certain that notice had been given in
proper form, he sent formal and explicit notice to the Oxford Univer-
sity Press and enclosed a copy of the opinion of the Attorney General.
Approximately one year later he asked whether in the opinion of the
Attorney General sufficient time had been allowed for compliance fol-
lowing notice. The reply, which is herewith reproduced, gave assurance
that this was the case: